[7thOF7th]

The problem with your scenario is that you reference the accused as the "perp" or perpetrator of the crime. You obviously have no concept of the presumption of innocence. You must be of the opinion that if he is accused he must be guilty. If that is the case please go joust with your peers.

[Mr. Mojo]

You must be of the opinion that if he is accused he must be guilty.

Of course not.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

If you knew (not merely stongly suspected) the accused was guilty of the crime would you still maintain that "the system worked" if a "not guilty" verdict were reached? My point is that occasionally the system doesn't work. .....the O.J. case is a prime example.

As far as the MJ case is concerned my original post on this thread dealt exclusively with the count of giving alcohol to minors.